FACING CANCER RISKS

Newsweek (6/23/08) has an informative
article on: "Your Lifestyle, Your Genes, and
Cancer." It discusses the growing consensus
among experts that genetic damage, particu-
larly to our DNA that is done by free radicals
(also called "oxygen radicals" and "oxy radi-
cals") is the main cause of most cancers. Oxy
(free) radicals are manufactured continually
in all of our 30 trillion cells simply as by-pro-
ducts of breathing. They cause ageing, and
eventually kill us. That's because oxygen is
poison! It only makes up 20% of the air we
breathe. The rest is inert nitrogen. Pure
oxygen would kill us within 48 hours, due to
free radical damage to our lungs. Smoking
doubles the free radical damage, because the
smoke contains those killers in abundance.
That's why smoking takes ten years off your
life even if you don't get lung (or some other)
cancer from it. (I'm full of good news today!)

Oxygen is what rusts steel into dust and rots
fruit, wood, and everything else that rots or
"goes bad." Those are fairly slow oxygenation.
Fire is fast oxygenation! Oxygen even breaks
down granite, given enough time. So it's
powerful stuff. When it is used in our bodies,
it breaks down, releasing into our system these
notorious free radicals (FR).

Free radicals are wild because they are hungry!
All of them are one electron short. So they rob
the nearest normal molecule of the electron
they need. That turns the robbed molecule into
a free radical, and creates a chain reaction that
damages more and more cells. When DNA is
damaged in this fashion, it may respond by re-
producing out of control, turning into cancer.

Why doesn't everyone have cancer then? Be-
cause our bodies, besides making FRs, also
make antioxidants that tame them and render
them harmless. Plants also do the same thing,
and hence are an abundant source of additional
antioxidants for us. And as we get older, we
need all the help we can get. That's because the
polluted air, water and food we take in are also
loaded with FRs. Processed foods frequently
contain high levels of lipid peroxides, which
produce FRs that damage the cardio vascular
system, as well as our DNA. Stress also adds
to the damage. The hormones which cause the
stress reaction in the body degenerate into par-
ticularly destructive FRs.

Enough with the bad news, already! What
should we do? The Newsweek article, while it
mentions oxygen radicals as the probable
cause of most cancers, said (erroneously) that
we are at a loss as to what kind of diet might re-
duce that risk. (I suspect the giant food pro-
cessing industry may have an influence there.)

According to the Harvard Health Letter, "A raft
of large studies have consistently shown that
whole grains, legumes, fish, fruits and vege-
tables and vegetable oils have the potential to
protect your body against heart disease and
cancer." We do, in fact, know a great deal
about foods that are rich in antioxidants. (If
you are interested, google "antioxidant-loaded
fruits" and "purple berries with antioxidants"
for starters.

Newsweek's failure to supply this vital informa-
tion is baffling and inexcusable. While main-
line medicine is waiting for absolute proof that
dietary antioxidants help prevent cancer, there
are thousands of competent doctors practising
"alternative medicine" who have been using
this information successfully to prevent and
treat a long list of ailments, including heart
disease and cancer.

The research for this goes back 50 plus years to
Denham Harman, a prof. of medicine and bio-
chemistry at the U. of Nebraska, He began
linking free radicals (oxy radicals) to a multi-
tude of diseases. The Shute brothers, up in
Canada began using vitamin E (a powerful
antioxidant) on their patients with remark-
able success. That was back in the '70s. (See
Vitamin E for Healthy and Ailing Hearts, by
Wilfred Shute, M. D.) The North East Nurses
Study, going on for years with 87,000 nurses,
found those regularly taking vitamin E had 40%
less heart disease than those not taking it.
(That, of course, does not constitute "proof."
There could be many other factors involved.)
On this, see The Antioxidant Miracle, by Les-
ter Packer, Ph. D. He is head of the Bio-chem
lab at UC Berkley that is named for him. His
book is a gold mine for evidence of the free-
radical and disease connection. He writes a
chapter discussing each of the most impor-
tant antioxidants, their sources, and the
voluminous research backing what he says
about each. He is one of the top authorities
in the world on this vital subject, and the book
is a result of a lifetime of dedicated study.
Here's to good health!

THE FIGHT WITHIN ISLAM

To: The Albany Democrat-Herald

We are all glad there hasn't been another 9/11
attack on the U. S. Certainly another such attack
would be much more difficult to bring off now. Be-
sides, it isn't necessary, from the other side's point
of view. Bin Laden himself said the purpose of 9/11
was to provoke the U. S. into over-reacting by
attacking a Muslim country. MISSION ACCOM-
PLISHED!

We attacked not one, but two Muslim countries, and
Mr. Bush wants us to take on a third! Don't we have
our hands full now, Mr. President? As it is, we are
bogged down in two hostile countries without any
honorable way to either get out, or stop the killing.

They don't need to come here to kill us. We have
made that easy for them by going there. Since we
aren't achieving political progress there, we are just
treading water. We have armed and trained a na-
tional police (500,000 strong), a national army (300,
000) and are paying $300 a month to 93,000 Sunnis
not to fight us, and to fight al Qaida in Iraq instead!
If you add our 151,000 G. I.s and another 150,000
(armed) contractors, that's well over 1,000,000
people under arms to maintain peace there! But
there's no peace.

According to the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report, the
national police are corrupt, and heavily infiltrated by
members of various militias. It is questionable whom,
exactly, they are taking orders from. According to
numerous reports from Iraq, these police are noto-
riously brutal, and are involved in ethnic cleansing,
protection rackets, and other Mafia-type activities.
And the killing goes on. 50-some killed in one bomb
blast yesterday. Where were the police? We have
lost 18 of ours killed already this month. So we aren't
winning. If we were, we could come home. We can't.
All hell will break loose if we do. Obama surely knows
this, and needs to be more clear in acknowledging it.

There are 1.3 billion Muslims, folks! Most of them
want peace as much as we do. It's true that wishing
won't make it so. But it's also true the whole WW II
story is irrelevant to the global struggle vs. terrorism.
That one was about land. This one is about minds,
and within Islam, primarily. As Reza Aslan writes in
No God But God: "What is taking place now in the
Muslim world is an internal conflict between Muslims,
not an external battle between Islam and the West.
The West is merely a bystander -- an unwary yet
complicit casualty of a rivalry that is raging in Islam
over who will write the next chapter in history."

There isn't a Muslim country in the world that isn't
fighting violent terrorists within its own borders.
We have gotten ourselves into the middle of these
battles without a clue about what's going on and why.
To claim that we or anyone else is "winning," is to
betray our confusion. These people will eventually
fight to an exhausted draw, and/or another Saddam
will emerge like the last one, by a Darwinian struggle
for the craftiest and cruelest. While we are studying
history, folks (for those who like WW II analogies),
go a little further back and read the part about
British efforts to establish democracy in Iraq after
WW I. That one didn't work either!

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

SICK AND TIRED, BUT MOSTLY SICK

From the editor of the local (Albany, OR)
paper: "Thanks for the letter. But isn't every-
body getting a little tired of all this back and
forth and citing conflicting 'facts'? Another
critic says in the paper it is the very political
progress in Iraq, not the surge, that has
calmed things down. Now you say there is
no political progress and we can't make any.
Which is it?"

Yes, it is certainly true that people are tired and
confused. That's because the government has
never told the full truth about what is going on,
and is not doing so now. They tell whatever
part of the truth that serves their purpose, and
then hire retired generals to spin their talking
points on TV while posing as objective analysts.
These "expert" authorities are usually on the
payroll of one of the networks, while also being
paid by defense contractors to lobby for them.
They are also drawing handsome retirements
from the armed forces, paid by the taxpayers
being misled by them. So yes, the public is
confused. The process is corrupt, including
the networks we rely on for truth. And the "free"
press is not innocent either. Even the New York
Times helped mislead us into war by parroting
uncritically doctored "intelligence" fed their
respected reporters secretly by the Vice Pres.'s
office.

Here is my answer to the editor quoted above:

(After private pleasantries), Military progress
(of which there is some) should not be mis-
taken for political progress, which is superfi-
cial at best and illusory at worst. It's like rear-
ranging deck furniture on the Titanic! That's
because the Shia majority is determined to rule
or ruin, and the Sunnis are just as determined
that they will rule or ruin.

The Sunnis are backed by the Arab world (and
money) and the Shia are backed by Iran and us.
If we would cooperate with Iran as urged by our
Iraq Study Group's report, this might all be
sorted out. Without that, there isn't a chance.

If Obama wins, we're out of there, and all hell
breaks loose! (Literally). We'll see then how
much political progress has been made! The
condition and performance of the national
police is my factual evidence of no political
progress, and one of the reasons why there is
none. I agree that the surge accomplished only
some tactical success, without solving any of
the underlying problems. I still see no willing-
ness to share power, oil money, or anything
else of substance. This quarrel between Shia
and Sunnis is deep and bitter and has gone
on for at least 1,000 years. Sen. McCain notes
that they got along well under Saddam. That's
true. Saddam simply shot Shia leaders that
bucked him, and anyone else that created
strife. He totally wouldn't have any of it! And
everyone knew that even recognition of
differences was taboo. It was socially unaccep-
table to discuss them. When we pulled the plug
on Saddam, we also pulled the plug that was
holding back sectarian strife! That was just one
of the unintended consequences of removing S.

For the real skinny on Shia-Sunny dealings and
the history thereof, including what is going on
in and with Iran, see Vali Nasr's The Shia Revival.
He is an American Muslim scholar that I have
written about before. He was born in Iran and
keeps close ties there as well as throughout the
Muslim world. I can't speak too highly of him
and his work. Google him and read everything
he writes, if you want to understand anything
going on in that part of the world. He was a
consultant for the Iraq Study Group. "My
people are destroyed for lack of knowledge,"
the O. T. prophet wrote long ago. It's still true
today. Deal with it!

IRAN: WHY CAN'T WE JUST LEAVE?

That's what the majority of Iraqis want, and it's
what the majority of us want as well. We can't,
of course, because all hell would break loose.
So we aren't winning, are we? We are treading
water without getting anywhere. The war suppor-
ters are bragging the we only had 15 of ours killed
in May, vs. the 30 or 40 per month last year.
But 15 KIA each month means 180 in the next
year, and so on. That's way too many! No one has
yet given us an achievable goal in Iraq that is worth
the life of one G. I.

The Brits tried this in Iraq in the '20s and '30s. They
forced upon the Iraqis the same kind of status of
forces agreement that we are attempting to black-
mail the Iraqis into accepting now. Yes, I said "black-
mail." We are holding $50 billion of Iraq's money
in our Federal Reserve. It was held up under
Saddam's rule. Instead of quickly turning it over to
the new "sovereign" government there, without
strings, we are using it as a carrot to bend Iraq to
our will.

So yes, Bush is trying, before his term ends, to coax and
push the Iraqis into a multi-year "security agreement"
that allows us to retain the use of 58 bases there. We
are insisting on immunity from Iraqi law for U. S.
troops and contractors, as well as a free hand to carry
out military activities without Iraqi permission, and
to arrest Iraqi citizens without warrants, and hold
them at will.

Actually, if we were really winning, as McBush claim,
why would there be a need for us to stay? Why would
we even want to stay? We need to stay to continue
to try to maintain order, and prevent a total break-
down of the same. We want to stay because we are
determined to gain and maintain hegemony in the
area at any cost!

Our continuing failure in Iraq was predestined (and
predicted) due to culture and demographics there.
We are up against the identical situation faced by the
British there following WW I. They were, at the time,
the reigning colonial power in the world.

Here's the situation I'm talking about: We've spent
five years and mega-bucks training and equipping
500,000 Iraqi national police. When they are ready
able and willing to maintain order in the country, we
can leave. Don't hold your breath! (Actually, in
addition to the 500,000 police, we've trained an army
or 300,000, and we have 150,000 of our troops there,
plus we have another 150,000 contractors from the
U. S. and other countries.)

All together then, that's one million, one hundred
thousand people legally under arms there. So what's
the problem? The problem is that Iraqi police are
notorious for corruption, brutality, death squads,
sectarian fighting, and mafia-like protection rackets,
kidnapping, and ethnic cleansing. Far from enfor-
cing the law and maintaining order, these guys are
crime, inc. Those deficiencies were recognized and
acknowledged by the Iraq Study Group in it's report.
So they are hardly news. The ISG also said that
the national police are heavily infiltrated by members
of the various militias. That raises the question:
whose orders do they follow? Not ours, for sure!

The Ottomans governed "Mesopotamia" for 1.000
years. They handled the sectarian divisions by
administering the area in three separate provinces:
Sunni, Shia, and Kurd. Within those provinces,
government was by tribal sheiks who fought for
supremacy in a Darwinian struggle. This is how
Saddam came to power after the British failure to
establish democracy. It's what will happen again,
eventually, when we are gone. And we will go!
It's a matter of time, lives, and lots of money! It's
Viet Nam all over again. As Gen. Petraeus has
said, echoing each commanding general ahead of
him, "there's no military solution possible."
What is it about that that we can't get? Nor is
there, realistically, a political solution, short of
splitting the country back into its original three
provinces. The Ottomans had it right; the Brits
got it wrong! Guess whom we chose to follow.